October 31, 2010

At first it was exciting that Obama was the sort of brainy, cultivated Democrat who would be at home in a “West Wing” episode.

But now he acts like he really thinks he’s on “West Wing,” gliding through an imaginary, amber-lit set where his righteous self-regard is bound to be rewarded by the end of the hour.

I've never watched "West Wing," and that reference doesn't make me regret my avoidance of it.

His arrogance led him to assume: If I build it, they will understand. He can’t get the gratitude he feels he deserves for his achievements if no one knows what he achieved and why those achievements are so vital.

People liked him. And we liked the idea of ourselves liking him. The mistake was for him ever to think that made us want the things on the Democrats' wish list.

We want the best people to govern us, but many voters are so turned off by Obama’s superior air that they’re rushing into the arms of disturbingly inferior pols.

No. We hate the policies, and we're voting for the people who will undo them. It doesn't matter if they aren't as sleek and pretty. We want out of the place where the glamorous hero led us.

209 comments:

West Wing's President Jeb Bartlett was a New England aristocrat limousine liberal who was an arrogant prick, but seemed like the perfect liberal president because the writers made sure nobody in the room pointed out how much BS his speeches were laden with. More than once I heard some idiot on the street wistfully wish Pres. Bartlett could be our real president.

Dowd may not even realize how right and how brutal she was in pointing out that in electing Obama, liberals thought they were electing Bartlett.

I never liked Obama. Didn't hate him either, but I knew from day one that his ascendancy was from affirmative action and nothing more. He was never smart, had no accomplishments in life, other than being socially promoted for being some kind of clean and articulate non-threatening black. Seriously, what did his wife do at that hospital to warrant a $300,000 a year job? Oftentimes, the people with the most education, just aren't that intelligent.

That's embarrassing. You felt good about liking someone black. (I am standing to applaud you.) Do you think I like the idea of me liking you? Welcome to Sucker City.

This reminds me of one of my ex's girlfriends, who has irritable bowl syndrome. She dislikes me, now, because I'm a macho straight-talker/shooter. She encouraged my ex to go with the water salesman. It gives me a warm feeling all over when I think about it:

The very sometimes-caustic person who loved her, and would care for and protect her, she shunned because I ain't all fucking butterflies and gumdrops. While the "nice" asshole, who will lie to her and destroy her friend's marriage - and charge her for the privilege of "treating" her - is embraced.

It doesn't get any better than that.

She, too, liked the idea of herself liking him. I - with my silly "values" and "facts" and notions of "integrity" - I'm not worthy of such a brilliant person's admiration.

So, how's that philosophy of what to appreciate (if you can call it that) working out?

And I still want to know if you feel any guilt for saddling the rest of us with this loser for such selfish and shallow reasons?

"And I still want to know if you feel any guilt for saddling the rest of us with this loser for such selfish and shallow reasons?"

Me, personally? That's not why I voted for him. I voted for him because I thought McCain was inadequate. McCain would have gone along with the Democratic Congress, and we wouldn't now have the crisp clarity we have about what was wrong with that.

The mistake was for him ever to think that made us want the things on the Democrats' wish list.

Are you serious? Why wouldn't he want to do the things on the Democrats wish list? Why on earth would Obama think otherwise? He won. I would imagine he thinks that he won because people who voted for him, expected him to push the Democratic agenda. Yes? No?

I'm not normally a Republican voter, but this election I'm a yellow-dog Republican. I'd literally vote for a drunken yellow dog if I thought he could roll over more time and raise his paw to vote no. Not just no, but Hell No!

Actually, the post "How McCain lost me" was published on Nov. 8, 2008, just after the election, but it collects posts from the whole election season, and you can see how I thought about things in real time by going through that post. So don't lump me in with some big old stereotype. I was aware and talking about the nonsense surrounding Obama all along.

The West Wing was actually a very good show. Yes, it often had the lefty point of view but superb acting and excellent writing elevated it.

And McCain would never have signed the stimulus bill or Obamacare into law. Certainly not as written. And he wouldn't have nominated Sotomayor or Kagan for the USSC.

It's funny how much people liked Obama before he was President because the one thing we've all learned now is that he's got a very unlikeable personality. He's kind of an ass, politics totally aside. How did so many people miss that?

"I know that I voted against McCain. Up through August, I genuinely didn't know which candidate I'd vote for, but I knew I was taking more shots at Obama and therefore giving the impression that I favored McCain. I didn't trust Obama, and I feared (and still fear) what Obama would do with a Democratic Congress. McCain was a more familiar character, less fun to write about, and he was also the underdog. But by mid-October, I knew that unless something big happened, I would vote for Obama. It was nothing new that Obama did. I didn't start liking him more, and I never got caught up in the Obama lovefest."

MoDo can't go more than two paragraphs without praising the brilliance of Obama (and by extension herself) or denigrating his critics as stupid or insane. At least she's sometimes grudgingly willing to criticize the President, albeit three times removed, which is probably the best we can hope for from her ilk.

Wrong, AllenS. Go back and read Althouse's original blog post on Sarah Palin. Palin got a huge bounce from Althouse's endorsement. Without Althouse, Sarah Palin would still be sitting on a PTA committee in Wasilla.

Dowd like to frame events by their ethos and character, which is always a factor, still I voted for Obama based on policy promises and supreme court nominations. Honestly, I am disappointed. But for those who hate the policies and the President, on the other page you can read Frank Rich's screed on how Tea Party hell no candidates will be quickly absorbed by the GOP elite which has funded them. If he is right, what happens after these next two years will be most interesting.

McCain would have gone along with the Democratic Congress, and we wouldn't now have the crisp clarity we have about what was wrong with that.

You know this how? Crystal balls? Psychics? That "spirit" you once said was in your house?

I blame Obama voters and McCain holdouts, equally, for the disaster we've faced.

Rush said we'd have to pull McCain over the line and then deal with him. That wasn't good enough for you? And are you telling me that approach would've resulted in what you imagined it would?

One of the most amazing parts of the NewAge phenomena is how there's no reasoning with them - they'll do the wrong thing, no matter what, because that's where their gut leads them - and then they get angry when found out.

Other commentators will say, "Liberals will never apologize for what they've done" but I know better:

NewAge is the driving force behind liberalism, just a Christianity is what's behind conservatism.

The evil that is NewAge will keep you, forever, trying to square a circle. It can't be done, Ann. Your "reasoning" isn't. You no more know what McCain would've done than I do. You felt good, about yourself, to vote for Obama - that's the truth. You wanted to feel superior in your choice. It had nothing to do with McCain and Congress. (You've admitted, repeatedly, you haven't been political, so the idea you were thinking that far ahead is a lie - not to mention it leads to the idea you thought that voting for Obama would be some kind of stop gap on that same Congress. Yea, right.) It was all about you and nothing more.

The truth is the hardest thing for NewAgers to admit. Unfortunately, because of that, they force the rest of us to pull it out of them. Then they get pissed.

And everyone wonders why we're so partisan now:

Because NewAgers can't have anything any other way but the way they say - or else.

"Is there some sort of idea that if you think McCain is too liberal, you still have to vote for him, because if he's too liberal, then Obama is really too liberal? I don't buy that. Better a principled, coherent liberal whose liberal choices will, if they don't go well, be blamed on liberals than an erratic, incoherent liberal whose liberal choices will be blamed on the party that ought to get its conservative act together."

Ritmo, are you playing dumb? There are no real figures to cut because the incompetent wastrels currently befouling the Congress failed to produce a budget. Here's a start, though: TOTAL FREEZE ON INCREASES.

I think it's almost a given that the Democrat was going to win the 2008 Presidential election, so it's unfair to blame Althouse for that. What I do blame her and her fellow white guilt-driven D primary voters for is having Obama in office instead of the slightly less offensive Hillary Clinton.

No fucking way this charlatan gets the Democratic nomination if he's a white half-term Senator from Illinois named Barry O'Brien or something.

Are you sure that's not just a hedge to cover for your creamy center falling for the rest of it?

Regardless, it has certainly worked out that the Dems intentions are now unmistakable, and that many incumbent Repubs are just as bad. So all that matters now is what we do from here on. The choice has never been clearer in my life of elections: Continue down the 70 years spiral or change.

Obama is not the problem, just a symptom.

"We want out of the place where the glamorous hero led us"

He was just a landmark along the way. Unfortunately, there are no bread crumbs to follow back. The return has to be a different route. As energetic as the conservatives are, what matters is what happens after the election. We need to do dramatic change that is virtually revolutionary or it will be short lived and mild in effect. We need to strengthen our people's character so that no one ever again thinks electing a President will mean that they won't have to buy their own gas or pay their mortgage. What happened to us? I don't think a single person would have believed that in my parents generation.

Ritmo, are you playing dumb? There are no real figures to cut because the incompetent wastrels currently befouling the Congress failed to produce a budget. Here's a start, though: TOTAL FREEZE ON INCREASES.

I suppose it's a sign of leaderless movements that any one among them - whether he's running for office or not - can propose what they actually plan to do.

They will not touch entitlements and defense (their sacred financial cow) is the biggest chunk of the budget.

I buy the argument that they are fiscal frauds. The Republican leadership is riding them all the way back to the same incompetence that got us into a near-depression.

There is a reason they don't mention any actual cuts: They will not find any they are willing to carry out. Occam's razor reveals the likelier explanation: They are fiscal frauds riding a political movement.

No proposals, no change. You guys truly have found your very own Obama. Except these guys are opaque and without any details from the very beginning.

Meade said... Wrong, AllenS. Go back and read Althouse's original blog post on Sarah Palin. Palin got a huge bounce from Althouse's endorsement. Without Althouse, Sarah Palin would still be sitting on a PTA committee in Wasilla.

And what did Althouse endorse Palin for? Vice President? McCain wouldn't have chosen Palin if it wasn't for Althouse? Then after The Althouse Endorsement she votes for the other two guys? Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Wrong, Ritmo. If you bothered to watch or listen to news outside of the HuffPo/Kos idiot box, you'd see massive spending projects already being slashed by Tea Party/Republican pols. The Big Dig 2 in New Jersey is gone, hopefully the low speed-high speed train in WI will go away, etc. People have to be in office before they have the power or opportunity to cut anything. Virtually all the Repub. candidates have outlined plans on their websites. Read them if you want to know where they stand, rather than falling back on the lameass "they're all the same!!!" canard. It's not just politicians being defeated, it's the whole failed and corrupt system taking a hit.

Yup. That was pretty much it. People hated Hillary, and were continually worried about McCain stroking out or go shithouse bat crazy mid term. Obama was clean, well spoken - all that shit. and black . How better to prove your enlightened white person creds.

You Ann. You voted for Obama because you were (are) in love with your intellect. You made a nuanced decision based on your analysis and wound up voting for this narcissistic Chicago pol.

Me, being not too different from Crack Emcee (speaking in my own words) couldn't really trust either of those 2 motherfuckers and decided to cast a protest vote. I voted Libertarian.

As I pointed out to my dear wife repeatedly - I have no problem voting for a black man. Just not that black man.

Wrong, Ritmo. If you bothered to watch or listen to news outside of the HuffPo/Kos idiot box, you'd see massive spending projects already being slashed by Tea Party/Republican pols. The Big Dig 2 in New Jersey is gone, hopefully the low speed-high speed train in WI will go away, etc. People have to be in office before they have the power or opportunity to cut anything. Virtually all the Repub. candidates have outlined plans on their websites. Read them if you want to know where they stand, rather than falling back on the lameass "they're all the same!!!" canard. It's not just politicians being defeated, it's the whole failed and corrupt system taking a hit.

All the state projects slashed are just posturing that prevents job growth (no infrastructure, no economy) and amounts to pennies or less. You can try to compare a few million here and there to the $3.5 trillion budget, but the $782 billion on defense and the $1.35 trillion on entitlements are the much bigger numbers you must tackle to see a real decrease. They actually mean something.

Sorry, turning our country into a transportation-bereft third world does not save you the money you need to come up with. You need to go back to Glenn Beck's chalk board and use real math.

Interesting MoDo now refers to The Zero as, "sort of brainy". Some of us knew it all along.

The rest of it, "who would be at home in a “West Wing” episode", we knew when we saw the Greek columns; that was fiction, too.

Also have to agree with AllenS about Meade and the Tea Party origins. As I noted in an earlier post, Conservative anger at the spending was going hot and heavy through '08; TARP and the auto bailouts were the final straw.

PS Notice Ritmo and roesch are always on the same posts spewing the same nonsense? Sort of a reverse Clark Kent-Superman? One goes the hysterical, hijack-the-thread route, the other with a lot of pseudo-academic obfuscation?

116 billion tax break, and the deficit came down over 100 billion last year. Who wouldn't be against this insanity and vote in Sharon Angle and get on with the real business of government, like shutting it down and drawing articles of impeachment.

Good article by MoDo. I half expect to see her marching at the next Tea Party rally. :)

Yes, we hate his policies, which he shoved down our throats without any regard for discussion or debate or even for the careers of fellow Dems that he will destroy come Tuesday--we are not a banana republic yet!

Now that he will lose Congress, what will happen when the bill to defund or repeal Obamacare and Finance Reform comes to his desk?

Obama is very dirty. 3/4 billion in campaign contributions! That's just the tip of the iceberg. Vote fraud. Horrifying associations. Hostility to Israel and an inexplicable soft spot for the Jihadis. A DOJ that is a thug shakedown racket for black hucksters.

I've thought from the moment he was elected that he will one day have to be impeached.

I'm not in favor of it. What a horror it will be.

But, Obama's dirty as hell. And his 60s lefty hatred for America is leading him to madness. And, the handing out of swag to black con artists has yet to even be investigated.

I think that Congress would prefer just about anything to impeaching Obama, but I think that events are leading in that direction. It's a horrifying nightmare.

Ritmo,Billions of dollars of real taxpayer money being saved from the shredder and you call it "posturing"? That's why the Left can never be trusted with finances. They truly don't know the value of a dollar (or how fast that value deteriorates once the dollar gets in the hands of Govt).

"Me, personally? That's not why I voted for him. I voted for him because I thought McCain was inadequate."

Come on now, Ann. Let us not make this about McCain vs. Obama. You must have known you voted for the inferior candidate that was Obama in the primary. You liked the idea of you liking him. How shallow!

Ritmo: How about this: how about we cut out social security entirely. All the lefties on this blog are ultra smart and savvy about money so they will have great big retirement accounts as will presumably all other ultra smart libs. The evil cons can dig in trash cans. Would you be down, as it were, with that idea? Because I certainly would. I would be greatly in favor of saying that SS was a sham, a tax to all but the very stupid, and declaring the joke over. No more SS collections. No more SS payments.

Billions of dollars of real taxpayer money being saved from the shredder and you call it "posturing"? That's why the Left can never be trusted with finances. They truly don't know the value of a dollar (or how fast that value deteriorates once the dollar gets in the hands of Govt).

What's the point of knowing the value of a dollar (and it's been in decline for a long time, BTW - not that anyone cares) when no distinctions are made between a billion, a few hundred billion, and a few trillion? These numbers are very different from each other.

Christie's decision may well have been the right one, and I don't know that high speed rail makes sense in backwaters. But certainly there's as much room for specifics when it comes to critiquing the projects as there is in the numbers.

Like you Ann, I voted for Obama. I admit he completely fooled me. Ultimately, his failure is due to the fact that he is a complete and udder lightweight is all aspects: intellectual, instinctual and physical. He is on the same plane as GWB, Algore, and John McCain.

Do we have to make this thread another "Why did Althouse vote for Obama" thread?

She's answered this adequately, and over the last couple of years, I've come to understand and respect her reasoning.

Look at O'Donnell in Delaware. I'd rather have O'Donnell nominated in DE, despite the fact that she'll certainly lose and the RINO would have certainly won, because this accomplishes two things:

1) It tells the Republican Party that they'd better back conservatives and not RINOs, or we'll primary the RINOs at all costs.

2) It prevents the RINO from giving Obama cover by voting for cap-and-tax and then allowing Obama to claim that it was "bipartisan".

If they're going to vote for cap-and-tax, and nonsense like this, anyway, then they might as well have a D next to their name. The last thing we need is another Olympia Snowe.

Aren't there quite a few conservatives here that agree with this reasoning, and favored O'Donnell's nomination for these reasons?

And this same reasoning applied in the McCain-vs-Obama choice. It was a tougher call, and I still disagree...but if Obama is hamstrung in 2 days, and is replaced by Thune in 2012, I'll change my mind and admit that she was right.

A graduated increase in retirement age, a decrease in contributions or pay-outs to those who don't need them... These are the sort of sensible things that are discussed and become reality in France and yet the T.P. will only blow up the issue with extreme all-or-nothing choices that force old farts like Shooting Thomas to go off his rocker.

Deficits go up and down based on a lot of factors, and are not really the problem. The measure of how we are doing and how it affects the future is the debt. I found this on Wikip:

"The 2010 Budget proposed by President Barack Obama projects significant debt increases... The debt is projected to nearly double to $20 trillion by 2015, but is expected to increase to nearly 100% of GDP by 2020 and remain at that level thereafter. These estimates assume real GDP growth (after inflation) ranging from 2.6% to 4.6% annually from 2010 through 2019, which exceeds Blue Chip consensus estimates."

I'm all for the slogan, but how sad it is that we would look to a couple of comedians for guidance. Numbers won't matter if getting laughs from your base is the object and why you get paid.

Stewart/Colbert are necessary because the media has been complacent for way too long. All the deference given to Bush, Palin (and if you want to lump Obama in there, go ahead), has made it impossible to inform a republic of their follies in a less entertaining way.

This was the first comment on NYT's story on the rally (recommended 505 times as of an hour ago):

I trust Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert more than any elected official or news media shill. The resentment of Applebaum and the others is fueled by envy and resentment. It's not Stewart's fault that the media has become a lapdog of the powerful.

Yeah. It's not Stewart's fault. I don't watch him all that much, but I get the good clips. It's not his fault, Bag. It's the fault of everyone who is too complacent to get their facts and reasoning straight and to demand a media that does that as a way to hold them accountable.

Shoutingthomas: Sadly they have already confiscated your money and spent it. Social Security has always been a scam. The Govt has told you you are putting money towards retirement. If that were true then there would be plenty of your money to give back to you. But there isn't. Why? The Govt. was kidding, fucking with you. They had the money to pay some people, but not all and maybe not most. My logic is to do away with the scam entirely thus relieving you of the requirement to "pay in" in SS and the Govt. to have to pay "benefits." Look at SS as a tax you have had to pay. Because that is what it is and has been.

@Professor, regarding your comment at 9:14, you spent a great deal of time and effort analyzing (to the point of nit-picking) McCain. But where was your detailed analysis of Barack Obama? Did you honestly look at his work on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? Did you look at the results of his days as a community organizer? Did you notice that he walked away from the citizens of Altgeld Gardens before the city finished cleaning up the asbestos? In other words, that he couldn't be bothered to finish the job? Did you examine his career in the Illinois state senate or the United States Senate to see how much effort he genuinely put into bipartisanship?

Shoutingthomas: To underscore the point that it is not "your money" you will remember that when you die "your money" disappears. You can't give it to your kids or to the local animal shelter. The Govt. gets to keep it. Smart plan for them, no?

John McCain was a dangerous man, who could not, even at the risk of electing a Socialist such as Barack Obama, be allowed to become President.

Remember ... John McCain put his name on the McCain-Feingold Speech Prohibition Act. He actively attempted to take away our First Amendment rights to criticize politicians. He was only stopped by the United States Supreme Court - which ruled his attempt un-Constitutional.

No candidate who attempts to strip Americans of the God-given rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights can ever be allowed to become President ... even if that means electing a complete douchebag like Barack Obama.

Barack Obama can be stopped. And, we're about to stop him. Barack Obama's crimes can be prosecuted. And we're about to fucking prosecute him.

But electing John McCain would have been the real disaster for America. Because electing John McCain would have signaled to the ruling elite that Americans don't really care about the Bill of Rights.

Politicians across the land now know two things:

1) If you fuck with The Bill of Rights, you're finished politically - even if you're a Republican. Even if you're allegedly on "our side." We'll kneecap you.

2) If you're a Socialist, we'll fire every politician who associates with you and votes with you. Barack Obama is poison.

Let's hope our ruling elite is paying attention to these important lessons.

I remember that SNL clip in 2000 of what would happen when each of the three presidential candidates won. Bush was shown with a campfire on his Oval Office desk, shuddering from the cold and yelling at roving mobs on the White House lawn to stop vandalizing things. They didn't want Gore because he was standing in front of a giant computer and addressing the country as a robot would. When Nader spoke, pigs flew.

I agree whole-heartedly: Republicans' first priority has to be cutting spending.

They need to cut defense, but most of the cuts need to come from spending that's a little more...discretionary than defense.

They need to eliminate entire departments. They need to slash the number of people on the federal payroll, and cut the pay of each bureaucrat remaining.

Every person removed from the government payroll will be one more person available for companies to hire to perform actual productive work. That's the real problem right there: We have too many people not contributing with actual constructive work.

We have to stop extending unemployment benefits and subsidizing non-work. We have to slash so-called "entitlement" spending.

Basically, we have to do the opposite of what Obama's been doing for the last two years. This stuff about how government spending creates jobs is pure nonsense.

Ritmo, we agree about the media. In fact, I think, most people agree they are lame, but they are overwhelmingly liberal. A more honest and informing media would be great, but I think it would benefit conservatives most. If you think they handled Bush and Obama equally, then I expect you would hate an honest, even-handed media.

And what did Althouse endorse Palin for? Vice President? McCain wouldn't have chosen Palin if it wasn't for Althouse? Then after The Althouse Endorsement she votes for the other two guys? Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Yep. And even more amazing, she - and now Meade - will keep on doing this, over and over again, never realizing that to (simply) say "I was wrong" is the only way to maintain the appearance of integrity they so desperately are trying to hang on to by trying to square that damned circle.

It's about as crazy-making as you can get, considering she's a popular and promoted blogger with, at least, some influence on online discourse.

I think the same thing as I read Glenn Reynolds:

He's read by millions. That's millions who will never stop ragging on race because brilliant Glenn, the law professor, can't get it out of his system and leads them to think it's OK. And even worse, from where I sit, he doesn't give a fig enough, about blacks, to shut up about it either. It's all about him and the praise he gets for being so "multicultural" - no one else figures into it, or can figure into it, least of all we actual blacks. Does keeping the race thing going hurt us? Of course it does. It also hurts the country, and gives the whole Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson-wing a run for it's money.

Stupidity knows no bounds, recognizes no education, and will free us only when we decide to free ourselves.

And no, Professor, your comments at 9:25 and 9:41 do not answer my final question above. You cannot call a person who has never succeeded at anything in his life besides winning elections a "principled" anything.

Ritmo: No dilemma for me since I have always thought that SS was a joke on a pogo stick. I therefore broke my ass these many years to have enough for my twilight years without having to rely on some bureaucratic fucks that would not work one second more than required. I think that anyone who has relied on SS for their retirement is an idiot and that, unfortunately, is probably the vast majority of the citizens of this great land.

As to your comment about reducing payments to those "who don't need them." This was the reason I provided for myself, because I knew SS was unsustainable and that at some point the lefty fucks would begin saying that this guy and that girl "didn't need" the money they had contributed. I knew that a Ritmo type would decide what I needed and what I didn't need.

Well, I have my money but I am absolutely going to take what I can from SS (call me that horrible word hypocrite) and I dearly hope that the money I get is money that won't be available to somebody who made no provisions for herself and "needs" it. Fuck them.

Ritmo, we agree about the media. In fact, I think, most people agree they are lame, but they are overwhelmingly liberal. A more honest and informing media would be great, but I think it would benefit conservatives most. If you think they handled Bush and Obama equally, then I expect you would hate an honest, even-handed media.

They liked Obama. They failed to hold Bush accountable as a candidate.

Barry is really just like George Jefferson. Loud, vain, contempous of other people who don't agree with him.

The big differance was that George Jefferson actually ran a business. Built a business. Paid a payroll. Had to pay taxes. Make on his own too feet. Something the President has never done and doesn't understand or value that much.

You know what. I would feel a lot better if George Jefferson was President.

Taxes are too high, and that slows growth, especially in jobs, but taxes are not the problem. The current rates are livable, (I pay the highest rates in the nation both Fed and state).

Spending is what it's all about. The current and future projected spending is unsustainable, and taxes can never be raised enough to pay for it without seriously hurting the economy. We are past the the intersection point on the graph. Reduced spending is the only solution and the moral thing for a government of free people. Are we still that?

Crack: Whenever race is discussed I always revert to the old saw about Southerners hating the black race but loving black people and Northerners loving the black race but hating black people. I think these Yankee bloggers are confused and go through all this multiculti bullshit to show their creds, make themselves feel good and so on, while staying well clear of actual black people.

The point of SSI was to reduce poverty among the elderly and it has done a fantastic job of that.

That was the purpose. Those were the decided demographics. Argue with FDR and the drastic decline in elderly who are destitute if you have a problem with history.

It's not me, it's not "bureaucrats" (or other invisible bogeymen) who are your problem. It's nutcrackers like Shooting Thomas. You know this to be true. He's the one who needs your convincing. You just take aim at me and a generic left as a way of letting off stray shrapnel from The Target Who May Not be Named.

The frustration is telling, as are the broadbrush generalizations. Maybe next you'll be warning the thread about, you know, Muslims.

Who takes care of you, bitch? Who protects you from all these johns and pimps out here. Who gives you everything you need? Now you wanna sass me? You gonna disrespect ME? I saved you from the streets and now you think you're gonna just do what you want.

I'm more concerned about corporate tax rates. Our companies pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and that money off the top puts us at an immediate competitive disadvantage against companies from Europe and Asia.

Hell, many countries actually subsidize their manufacturing, hiding it so as not to overtly violate fair trade law. We do the opposite, we tax them.

And then there are all the hidden costs that employers face: They have to employ tax accountants because of the complexity of the tax code and the absolute power of the IRS. They pay higher energy bills than necessary because of taxes hidden within the cost of energy, meant to discourage consumption. There's enormous hidden costs resulting from arbitrary and often silly environmental regulations. These things are all really taxes, too.

But at least the Democrats did solve that entire health care problem: If nothing changes, there won't be a private employer in the US offering health insurance to their employees after 2014, with the possible exceptions of companies like Microsoft and Google, who can sell a product for ten times what it costs to make it.

"Now that he will lose Congress, what will happen when the bill to defund or repeal Obamacare and Finance Reform comes to his desk?"

In the unlikely event such bills actually pass, they will get vetoed by Obama. And that veto won't get overridden. Next question?

The House generates budgets. Not the Senate. Not the President. The House passes the repeal bills to make him own the consequences of his actions. The House passes the several budget bills - not as an omnibus bill - in order to fund the necessary and isolate and highlight his crap. Let him own that. Hmmm, maybe you tie defunding of his crap to entitlement funding in a sort of mini omnibus bill. When he vetoes that, he owns cutting off entitlements too. It's not hard to see how putting together budget bills by House budget function could make Obama very uncomfortable.

If The Cracker's Emcee were better with words I'm sure he would not fear them so.

I don't fear them - a whole lot of 'em are usually worthless, and you're a prime example of that. You talk, and talk, and talk and for what? Where's the enlightening gem in all that verbiage? It doesn't exist. It's just Ritmo talking, to see/hear himself talking.

I agree Pasta, but we need to get spending to levels that work under current tax levels first, which I think are at their maximum sustainable levels.

Cutting business taxes would help, and I would suggest cutting them on anything that reduces the incentive to hire people first. The opposite of what Obamacare is doing. I have between 60 and 100 employees throughout the year, and I avoid hiring only because of government interference. Otherwise, hiring new employees would usually be a no-brainer. Right now it's a last resort.

I don't fear them - a whole lot of 'em are usually worthless, and you're a prime example of that. You talk, and talk, and talk and for what? Where's the enlightening gem in all that verbiage? It doesn't exist. It's just Ritmo talking, to see/hear himself talking.

Michael Haz said..."No. We hate the policies, and we're voting for the people who will undo them." Althouse, does this mean that you are voting for Ron Johnson against Russ Feingold?

Obviously, Wisconsinites have loved Russ Feingold. Many have swum through rivers of bodily fluids to vote for him. But Obama's team rammed Obamacare through Congress in a way that disrespected the People, America, and all Wisconsinites. Ron Johnson will make a good senator but Tuesday's election is about Obama and his team and the underhanded way they've played the game.

Lovable Russ: You're in the wrong river of change, on the wrong team, and your Senate career is nearly over.

It's funny that Dowd just noticed the self regard now. You'd think someone saying that this would be the time (his election) when we'd look back in history and recognize that this was the time when the earth started healing. When you say your election will literally cause the earth to begin healing, that is a lot of sef regard.When you say the water levels of the ocean will fall due to your election, that is an awful lot of self regard.

"When you say the water levels of the ocean will fall due to your election, that is an awful lot of self regard."

I think he actually promised they would stop rising. He kept that promise, but see, he gets no credit for what he accomplishes. People suck. All they care about is their damned jobs and taxes and stuff.

President Bush played a large role in pushing subprime mortgages for non-creditworthy borrowers.

Bullshit.

Bush went to Congress TWICE warning that Freddie and Fannie were in trouble. The corrupt Dems, the same ones who created the Community Reinvestment Rippoff, laughed him off, calling such talk "alarmist, fear-mongering and racist".

No use lying about it. We have it all on video.

Of course, Obama expects you to pretend that Bush didn't save 1.2 million lives in Africa, fighting AIDS. So I expect you'll swallow anything.

Michael's right about Social Security being a scam; basically, it's a better Income Tax (in the original Social Security Act the word appears something like 38 times) - no deductions or exemptions and everybody pays. In 1935, retirement age was 65 (and a lot of people died before that - remember, almost everybody smoked and antibiotics weren't in general use until right before WWII) and life expectancy for the average man was 68; a few payments and the voters were bought off cheap. Needless to say, nobody saw the unsustainability of the Boomers or advances in gerontology helped the the then-unforseen WWII.

The irony is it's a lousy way to save for retirement; any number of studies over the years show investing in the free market would have yielded a much greater return.

When people keep claiming that Obama was some kind of brilliant campaigner and that his team was a model of efficiency, I have to scratch my head and wonder how it is that they forget so quickly how things REALLY went.

Quick recap:

1. The nation is fed up with Bush - both right and left are angry at him for different reasons. But his approval ratings are in the tank.

2. Democrats are riding that disapproval to a wave election - lifting all boats.

3. As a result, it's fairly assumed that whoever wins the Democratic primary will likely be the victor in the fall. The only real question was whether it would be Hillary or Obama.

4. All through the summer, Obama and McCain are pretty much neck and neck with Obama getting a slight edge.

5. McCain names Palin as his VP and conservative enthusiasm goes through the roof. McCain surges to the lead.

6. Things settle back down a bit after all the AstroTurfed mudslinging at Palin, but Obama and McCain are still neck and neck.

7. The financial crisis comes up and McCain fumbles it badly.

8. Obama winds up cruising to victory fairly easily.

McCain beat himself in a year in which it would have been amazing to pull out a Republican presidential victory.

That Obama won wasn't terribly surprising given the national discontent with Bush. But that he won primarily because McCain beat himself was.

As the poll numbers showed right up until the financial crisis, a half-decent Republican candidate STILL could have beaten Obama. He was never fore-ordained to win. Had McCain been steadfast rather than panicked, we would have been biting our fingernails on Election Night wondering who the winner would be.

Obama won DESPITE the Greek columns and claiming that the oceans would recede, etc. Not BECAUSE of them.

It will be so interesting to see if Obama and/or the democrats can acknowledge that.

No. They won't.

They've been lining up their myriad excuses in advance:

- Americans are racists.- Americans are scared, bitter clingers.- Americans are stupid.- Obama didn't give enough speeches.- Ritmo and his friends didn't spam enough blog comments- Lefty bloggers didn't fall in line and STFU- Gays are ungrateful bastards- Democratic donors didn't give enough money- The Chamber of Commerce is actually a front for the Illuminati- The media actually wrote about too many of Obama's failures- America isn't more like China- Joe Biden is an idiot- Democratic voters are whiny complainers- Republicans are violating the rights of dead people and illegal immigrants by trying to stop them from filling out absentee ballots

Should I go on? The list of excuses they've ALREADY given are as long as your arm, and there are even more that I haven't listed.

They have ZERO plans to acknowledge their utter rejection at the ballot box. They just plan to go a la carte with the menu of pathetic excuses as to why they didn't win an election they DESERVED to win.

Sheesh, even HCR is only about a hundred billion a year, and it's paid for. [By comparison, how much (including the ongoing costs of care for the wounded, and the borrowing costs, and the cost of the new D-passed benefits (which are due)) will we end up spending because of Iraq? One or two trillion? Is it so awful to prefer spending that sort of money at home, and to pay for it? And, what is underhanded about spending a year debating something, and following the constitution when passing that thing?]

And, your second favorite target was a third tax cuts, a third building stuff, and a third stabilizers, during the worst downturn (because the banking underpinnings were wavering) since the Great Depression.

Your third favorite issue was supported by one of the very few cons who actually seems interested in cutting entitlements (and he's a WI guy). So, it must be possible to be for it, and still be an acceptable con.

You claim that you're worried about the policies. But, the numbers don't support your bizerkness. And, your language doesn't support your claims that you're motivated by policy. Hate. Disrespected. Underhanded.

It's emotion, not policy.

"people seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character"

You live in your own world, dude. The 2008 election was a landslide for Obama. Just admit it. Note that rarely can you get people motivated to vote against something. You win elections by getting people to vote FOR something. In 2008 they voted for Obama. Even Althouse voted for Obama. They thought he could turn the economy around because it was perceived that Bush fucked it up. Now things are swinging back to the GOP. The more things change...

Most of those pouring onto the Mall Saturday appeared to be younger than 35, and the signs they carried showed a decidedly left-wing bent: "I hope this isn't a trap," "I masturbate to Christine O'Donnell," "Communism was a red herring."

Alex Do a little history search. Taxes are lower on average for the top 5% than they have been for 75 years. The rich used to pay very high marginal tax rates from FDR to Eisenhower to LBJ and Nixon. And the rich sure didn't have trouble creating jobs. The rich have never suffered because of taxes in America. Never. And they sure as hell are not now. And you know it. The marginal tax rate now is 36%. It averaged over 50% for 50 years when America was booming.

@Matt: The top tax rate for about ten years was 91%. Is this a rate you advocate? Why do you think that the rate was reduced? Do you think it was reduced because the poor people wanted to give rich people some relief? I frankly don't think you know what you are talking about but I would love to hear your theories on why the rate has been relaxed for 40 years. I am not interested in the genius concept that "it used to be higher." Thanks.

The fact is that there are the same amount of payroll jobs(130 million) now as in 1999. Why such a total stagnation? I suspect the answer lies mostly in innovation & automation requiring less workers despite adding a lot of population.

Alex doesn't seem to realize that the Bush tax cuts for the rich are still with us and businesses are not hiring. Gee could it be because there is NO correlation between tax cuts and job growth in the private sector? Golly it might be!

And note the tax cuts raise the national debt. And because of the debt the tax cuts have raised the cost of making new investments. Do you care about the national debt? I'm guessing not because you have a Bush avatar.

Matt - you dufus. Tax rates are only one factor in the business cycle. The artificially inflated housing bubble(thanks Barney Fag), over-regulation and increased automation have led to the loss of 8 million jobs. Then Obama came along and created constant uncertainty to business which leads to an immediate freeze in capital. Too bad you don't understand such simple economic concepts.

We should not let this week's installment of Dowd drivel overshadow the truly hall of fame inanity of her previous column. In that column she compared Keith Richards' self serving confessions with the behavior of the men who restrained that woman at the Rand Paul event. She claimed that this proved that Keith Richards was less misogynistic and more gallant than Tea Partiers. Dowd really puts the anti-matter in the zeitgeist.

AlexWell your homophobia has just lost you the debate kid. And you think Barney Frank runs things! Hahahahaha. Wow...are youuuuuu ignorant. Go learn something about business and politics. It might do you some good.

And note the tax cuts raise the national debt. And because of the debt the tax cuts have raised the cost of making new investments. Do you care about the national debt? I'm guessing not because you have a Bush avatar.

You presuppose the validity of static analysis, and ignore that raising taxes most often does not bring in nearly as much money as expected, even when it is revenue positive.

But our problem is not tax rates, but rather, spending levels, which have gone through the roof over the last 4 years since the Democrats retook Congress - and that is why they are going to lose at least the House Tuesday (despite what Politico says - with RCP currently showing 221 GOP candidates likely winners, with 43 still toss ups).

Keep this in mind though - the Democrats had their chance to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. There is a small chance that they will continue some of them in the lame duck session. But, as of now, two months before they are set to expire, we are facing the biggest tax increase in our history. And, even though we are seeing some indicia of the recession maybe bottoming out, let's just see, when taxes skyrocket, just how well static analysis really works, and whether or not they can drive the economy even further into the ditch.

I also think the disparity between rich and poor in this country is obscene. But I know you don't see it that way because the rich 'earn' it.

Well, it is their money that you want stolen for the "public good".

But, as importantly, they are the ones who create jobs. We tried Keynesian aggregate demand style economics, and, guess what? Unemployment went up maybe 2%. Well, ok, that and a lot more regulations, and employment taxes coming at us.

Her last paragraphs are bs and make the rest useless. You don't need a PhD or an MBA to understand these bills. Or is that the excuse that the government reps used for asking their staff to Executive Summarize the hell out of them?

We want the best people to govern us, but many voters are so turned off by Obama’s superior air that they’re rushing into the arms of disturbingly inferior pols.No. We hate the policies, and we're voting for the people who will undo them. It doesn't matter if they aren't as sleek and pretty. We want out of the place where the glamorous hero led us.

I think that the problem may be that it is so easy to slide into: best-people = Ivy-League-elites. And, the election of Obama made it clear that this equation is nonsense.

There really is a self-identified elite now that has been running this country for awhile now. They are college educated, often from the best colleges, and tend to live in liberal urban echo-chambers. One problem is that they just don't understand the 80% of the population who don't live in highly urban areas.

But, I think that the bigger problem is that they have swallowed the pretext of their superiority. Many of them seem to believe that they really are smart enough to plan our economy. And, that their planning will out perform an unplanned economy. In short, it is their hubris here that has, to a very great extent, landed us in this economic mess.

The other thing that they ignore is that a planned economy is inherently corrupt. This is especially true when we are talking fascist style socialism instead of communist style, because the former is based on crony capitalism, and that greatly encourages rent-seeking, and even outright bribery, since the best way to make a profit in such a system is to get the inside track with the bureaucrats and politicians passing out the winning tickets.

Her last paragraphs are bs and make the rest useless. You don't need a PhD or an MBA to understand these bills. Or is that the excuse that the government reps used for asking their staff to Executive Summarize the hell out of them?

Actually, what you probably need is a JD, given how convoluted and involved they are.

I think though that a lot of voters this election are going to essentially say, that if you are going to depend on committee staffers to draft the bills and then tell you what they think they put in them, then we don't want you representing us in Congress.

Obama was never "brainy", "cultivated" or any other imaginary description MSM gave him. He have always been an errogant empty suit. The problem is that even if he is not elected again to the office he'll remain Mr President, and it will be in his power to continue doing a lot of damage to the country for many years to come.

Matt: The "poor" in this country almost uniformly are sheltered and well fed (very well fed to look at them), own autos and television sets and enjoy air conditioning. What you object to is rich people, not the disparity between the underclass who are largely the making of do-gooder social policies. As to the interaction of tax policy, impending tax rises, hiring and employment you appear to know nothing you have not been told by your liberal teachers.

"Facts hurt my brain! Please help me pull my dick out of my own ass, lest I think it's yours! What was the topic, again?"

Pasta, Michael and Bag, OTOH, at least know who's on their side. The other dimwits don't even get that no matter how much you try to make this about Obama and how much you hate him, the T.P. is impotent without his competence.

No. We hate the policies, and we're voting for the people who will undo them.

That's Your Leader speaking. And the rest of the country (not just the 25% represented by your "movement") has responded. Suck it up, wimps, and deal.

"I also think the disparity between rich and poor in this country is obscene."

Matt,Have you ever considered that there is a correlation between the vaunted increasing income disparity of rich and poor and the government's increasing role in running the economy? There is a reason why the CEOs of companies like GE (owner of NBC and of medical software) are on each president's economic team, for instance. Just a thought.

This world we inhabit is one containing a million times as much operative facts available to be learned and intelligently applied as the world of our grandparents. Still, no one knows enough to predict the future. As a result realistic people are still cast upon Faith in some system of organized knowledge or some God to direct our paths. Mountain golf is like that...hit a ball over the green, and then it is a long way down and back up to retrieve a ball. But to the rare bold golfer, he can also find 6 more balls no one else went after. See, we often make decisions from instincts and leadings more than from prior knowledge, but something makes all things work together for good for us. McCain desperately picked Palin for Conservative Cred, and then runs a losing campaign to a talentless con man who is guaranteed to lose to Palin ( Unless Rove has his way)ending in a Conservative President. Eat your heart out NYT. And thanks again Professor Althouse.

Just because I bring facts to the table doesn't mean it's intended to make you feel dumb, Alex. What am I supposed to do? Not use any facts or reasoning, in anticipation that you'll be unfamiliar with them? Just so that you'll feel better about yourself? These are discussions, not circle jerks.

Is being ignorant really a compliment where you're from? Where I come from it's not looked upon highly.

And yet, you're the one who only cums here to listen to unqualified praise, uncritical agreement and pretty niceties for yourself and everything you have to say. If that's not masturbatory I don't know what is.